Slashdot Mirror
Ruling Clears Way For Lindows Trial
shystershep writes "Various sources are reporting that Microsoft's appeal in the Lindows trademark infringement suit was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue was the trial judge's decision [PDF link] to 'instruct a jury to consider only whether 'windows' was a generic term before November 1985, when the first version of Microsoft's Windows was released.' This is significant because a generic mark receives no trademark protection, and the ruling that the jury must make that determination based only on the use of the term before 1985 is a major blow to Microsoft."
From the trial judge's ruling:
the Court declares it will instruct the jury to consider whether the Windows mark was generic during the period before Microsoft Windows 1.0 entered the marketplace in November 1985. Furthermore, the Court will not instruct the jury that even if Windows were generic prior to November 1985, the trademark would nonetheless be valid today so long as the primary significance of the term today is not generic.
This doesn't mean that the judge has ruled that "windows" is generic, but it does mean that Lindows can (try to)point out to the jury that "windows" was used generically before Microsoft started using it. If it is generic, Microsoft loses their trademark protection in that name (althought "Microsoft Windows" would probably still be valid). Now it's all about the status of that term in the computer industry, including the commercial side of it, prior to 1985.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/uk/default.htm
:) ?
Says "Owned by OutLaw Group"....
Anyone want to get a mirror up before microsoft fixes it
Hasn't Lindows already changed their name to Altria or Claritin or something like that? Or was that Gator?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Intel went through something like this when AMD and Cyrix had "486 compatible" on their labels, and Intel went to court. Judge ruled: 486 too generic, which moved Intel to start naming their processors to Pentium and the like and trade mark it so somebody couldn't claim "Pentium compatible!" without getting into trouble.
Microsoft might be facing this themselves now. Let's face it - before 1984, the computer term "windows" existed. Everybody with a GUI called their interface a "window" and a collection of them was a set of "windows". MS might very well lose the case.
Short run: they call future OS's by their names and actually release "MS Longhorn 2003", much like Apple has "OS 10.3 Panther". Lindows will be able to sell their product (in the US at least) under the Lindows name.
Long run: More lawsuits between MS at Lindows anyway. Like I'm so surprised.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I agree. The Lindows guys surely chose this name to ride on MS' coattails (or borg tendrils if you prefer). The "Elmer Fudd" principle should not be forgotten: if the disputed name is pronounced the same way as the plaintiff's name if you are Elmer Fudd, you really blew it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If you let generic names become trademarks because the name has acquired secondary meaning, that is almost the equivalent of saying that with enough money, you can buy words out of the language. No one would let me enforce the trademark HOUSE for my brand of prefabricated homes. Windows should be no different.
In other words, when M$ says
"would the OS have been named Lindows if it wasn't for Windows?"
it is really saying:
"Don't look at the hole in the floor under the carpet. Just admire what a pretty carpet it is and believe you won't fall through if you walk across it."
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Would Microsoft have named their products Office, Word, Paint, .... Windows ... if those weren't generic terms and they weren't trying to grab the common term and associate it strictly with themselves?
Infuriate left and right
Now I wish they'd get smacked for "SQL Server", "Proxy Server", etc.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Seems to me that speaks for itself. If, in 1985, Microsoft thought "Windows" wasn't generic, why did they think they had to qualify it by tacking their corporate name in front?
You don't hear other companies calling their products "the General Motors Cadillac" or "Schering-Plough Claritin" or the "Sanford Sharpie" or "Procter and Gamble Mr. Clean."
Anyone product manager would want their product name to be short and punchy. Nobody would tack the company name on unless the company's own legal department had opined that the name is generic, or close to generic, or in danger of becoming generic.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"I have no problem with people using common words as their trademark names, as long as the trademarks are only defended within that industry."
Except that is the EXACT opposite of a trademark. Generic terms are ones that cannot be trademarked. The simple fact is that MS's trademark for Windows was denied three times before they managed to appeal it. Windows should have never been a trademark. No one really care about you legal opnion, clearly you have zero understanding of trademark law.
Thalasar
With the current jury instructions (use time period before MS' products to determine genericness) Microsoft *IS* going to lose their trademark if this goes to trial.
This will be a great show to watch.
I predict huge press. The ironic twist is that Microsoft brought this upon themselves! By suing Lindows, 'er Linspire - they brought into question their own trademark. Now that grenade is going to blow up in their face.
I hope they do not pay some money to settle since that's what they've been doing recently. Because it will be great to watch Gates try to deny all the windowing systems they ripped off when they greated their product.
Anyone also notice that Lindows doesn't care if they lose? This is playing out perfectly for them. They get a ton of press regardless and if they win they'll be in the history books. Or Microsoft will be for being so dumb to get their OWN trademark invalidated.
It's nice to see the little guy win one.
Lindows - DON'T SETTLE! We're counting on you.
Trademarks 101: You cannot trademark a generic name.
I think you mean, "You cannot trademark a descriptive name."
For instance, "Crest" is a generic name, and has a long history of use before Proctor and Gamble received a trademark for its toothpaste product.
If they has instead tried to apply for a trademark for a metal shield product, they almost certainly would have failed to receive protection because "Crest" is a descriptive term for a shield.
Generic terms are fine for trademarks (see Scope, Tide, etc.) as long as they are not descriptive.
In this case, "Windows" may indeed be a descriptive term due to its use in the UI domain prior to 1985 -- and that's what the courts will have to decide.
You are correct, however, that the parent to your post is missing the point.
but Michael Moore and others have mentioned it.
Credible source
It was stupid for Lindows to use that name in the first place...like forming your company and calling it "Microsopht" - you're gonna get blasted and you won't win.
Anyone who thinks they name their product Lindows to "ride on the success" of Windows is missing the point.
It wasn't stupid"for Lindows" to do this...it was slyly calculated. They knew exactly what they were doing: by naming their product "Lindows" they were going to force Microsoft to defend its trademark -- a case they thought they could win.
If they had followed your example ("Microsopht") then that indeed would have been stupid, because that's an easy case of infringement.
Their product naming strategy was simply bait to force a court to re-evaluate Microsoft's tenuous trademark. Microsoft knows this full well, which is why they wanted the case thrown out.
Surely windows is/was a generic term. I think X-windows should be prior art enough as the name of a software package that did much the same as MS's product. And the term "windows" was in use generically in the computer community before that.
I think though that "Lindows" is just a bit too close to the common practice of refering to MS Windows as just "Windows". They should name their product Linspire Windows or something similar. Which they may be already planning to do.
There is a huge pile of evidence to show that the term windows was very much generic at the time MS pick it, THAT IS WHY THEY PICKED IT. They didn't pick it because they were trying to create some new brand (ala Nike, Sony, eBay, etc.), but rather, they chose the word windows because that had become the term to define an entire category of window manager type programs.
With this latest ruling, which is now appeal proof, Lindows has the wooden stake to drive through MS' heart.
This will be a fun trial to watch. Robertson, Gates and Ballmer are all scheduled to testify.
Microsoft will either be forced to pay Lindows a LOT of money to settle this or to lose their trademark at trial. My prediction: Microsoft will not settle and is willing to lose at trial.
Let's face it, even if they settle with Lindows, every one else will know that the Windows trademark is toast. So by settling Microsoft would only be setting itself up for more lawsuits and more payouts.
In fact, I predict that Microsoft will attempt use their loss of the Windows trademark to their advantage. They'll give Longhorn an entirely new name because they'll claim it's an entirely new OS.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
At the end of the day the court will rule that Microsoft has exclusive rights to the use of the "Windows" trademark provided Microsoft provides each Lindows user with a $5 discount coupon good on his next purchase of an MS product.
was Stanford's W project. I'll give you all one guess what the W stood for.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Courtesy the GOOGLE USENET archive which gives 120 hits (103 unique) searching on "user interface" and "windows" prior to November 1985.
There is one I found curious though. If you change the search to "user interface" and "Microsoft windows" you get a single hit from Nov 16, 1983 about a spreadsheet program. Had MS been using that name for a precurser to Excel on Macintosh?
And personally, If I were going to to subpeona any documents, I would wan't to see the presentation slides used for this conference where "Leo Nicora [sic *], Product Marketing Mgr, Microsoft Windows" was to give a talk on "window architectures". If a MS employee was documented using the term generically in march of 1984 it would pretty much be a slam dunk for Lindows.
Another strong piece of evidence is a few references to "Sun Windows" which may have been a development environment, or maybe it was just references to their window management implementation and isn't meant to be a brand.
* Nikora
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Microsoft asked for permission to appeal in the middle of the case, before a trial even took place. The court of appeals refused to hear the appeal at this time. In essence, the appeals court put it off until later.
What this means is that there can be a trial, that the trial will consider only pre-1985 evidence on genericness, and that Microsoft can appeal the result afterwards. This case is far from over.